Answer:
2. Government is necessary, because people do not always behave perfectly.
Explanation:
<em>Option 1</em> is wrong because if the government cannot control people, there is no use of making policy. It contradicts James Madison's quota.
<em>Options 3</em> and <em>4</em> are incorrect because the government is a necessary element.
Option 2 is correct, as the government is an essential element. Without government, people may become clueless and clumsy. To make peace in the nation, the government has to control its people.
4. word art, I believe is the correct answer
To avoid the problem of having to forecast and discount an infinite number of dividends, we must require that the dividends start to grow at a fixed rate in the future.
<h3>What are dividends?</h3>
Dividends are payments made by a company to its shareholders. This money is taken from the total profits made by the company. The remaining money after the payment of dividends goes to re-investment in order to grow the company.
Therefore, we can confirm that in order to avoid the problems presented in the question regarding dividends, we must require that they grow at a fixed rate in the future.
To learn more about profit visit:
brainly.com/question/1494270?referrer=searchResults
Answer:
B. the longrun profit would be negative.
Explanation:
A perfect competition is characterized by many buyers and sellers of homogenous goods and services. Market prices are set by the forces of demand and supply. There are no barriers to entry or exit of firms into the industry.
In the long run, firms earn zero economic profit. If in the short run firms are earning economic profit, in the long run firms would enter into the industry. This would drive economic profit to zero.
Also, if in the short run, firms are earning economic loss, in the long run, firms would exit the industry until economic profit falls to zero.
A firm would shut down in the short run if price is less than average variable cost and exit if it is making a loss
Answer:
One company pays 100%, the other re-reimburses 50%
Explanation:
If an environmental assessment found that the two companies share joint and several liability for a hazardous materials cleanup.
What could happen if the two of them don't agree to cooperate in the cleanup is that one of the companies will eventually settle the costs fully while the other party will have to reimburse the party that pays, 50%.
The paying company could make claims because the environmental impact assessment has already found both companies jointly liable. hence each company ought to jointly share the costs
